All of you posting about verifying Adults

so basically you want SL to babysit someones child? on this i come down on LL's side: it is NOT thier job to monitor OUR childrens behavior on the net(no i have no kids, but i have plenty of nieces and nephews). although you make valid points John, its still the parents job to monitor thier childs net usuage.

if they want to be sure that no children get on here and end up in the Mature areas, then they need to close off the unverifyed sign up, and look for alternative ways for those without cc or bank info to join.

I will go even a step further... I have no trust-issues with the Linden as so far. But there is only one (well two) peron(s) I trust to "babysit" our 17 year old. Me and my partner... we know her. we talk. we understand each other. we listen to her need, wants and dislikes and so on and on. As wonderful Linden are, they can never replace that.

Morwen.

I personally beleive that if a new user (an actual ADULT), doesn't wanna take the time to be age-verified, the Teen Grid should a be sufficient for them, and ALL unverified users. The Teen Grid should be enough to demonstrate the capabilities of SL, and convince folks who want to stay to register.

An alternative:


ALL unverified users could at LEAST be blocked from entering ANY MATURE PARCELS. The red text "forcefield" thing should pop up and keep em out unless they are age-verified.

There is already way more than enough free adult material that underage kids can illegally access on the 'net every day.

For the paying customers that want an ALT, I would like to see the price go down to maybe 1 or $2.00 per month. Of course, I don't know if this is financially feasible for LL.

Just my 2 cents.

What astounds me is, We have been over this, and Over this Thousands of times and it has been demonstrated that CC verification is Not and Never has been an effective means of age verification so WHY do people keep bringing it up??

In the face of All the evidence to the Contrary WHY do you Keep Insisting CC verification or even Payment Verifivation equals Age Verification?

Now someone will say, "Oh but it IS an effective means of countering Griefers".

WRONG again. the griefers got in in Full strength BEFORE free accounts when ALL accounts were pay or credit card verified, some of the worst Net Crashing Attacks took place BEFORE PV or CC verification was made Optional.

The evidence simply is NOT there to support either of these contentions Yet people keep subscribing to the "Big Lie" theory, that if you shout something Long enough, and Loud enough, that Makes it the Truth.

If you want an effective Means of Age verification in place, Please tell us what it would entail, and Stop Beating this Poor horse, it's as Dead as it's ever going to get.

Angel.

It comes up everyday an unverifieder grid crashes and we are regulated to boards and another one gets fed up. And everytime, someone new complains about it, that hasn't been to the boards to express their frustrations.



No one is disputing that there were probably kids on the grid before. However, not in RECORD numbers, with no supervision. 9 times out of 10, when a kid was on the grid before open registration, it was off their parent's cards, which then deals the responsibility to the parents. Commonplace for teens to have their own computers, and generally the generation above having no idea about them, most kids can crack the parental protections out there. I've done it when I was a teen, I've seen it done, and my roommates did it as well as my brother.



You'd be naive in saying that the grid was down this much, with all the hacks in full glory along with many 16 and 17 year olds before open verification. I remember when I'd BEG for the grid to go down to restart the servers because they hadn't been off in more than 2 weeks. (There's a memory leak issue, small but it's there.) A 6 month period prior to open registration, the grid was attacked roughly 5 times in which the entire grid had to be taken down (as best guess with the searches available). Since open registration, we've seen that in a WEEK. (The week of hell, when Saturday - hacked perms, Sunday - scripts busted, Monday night - grid crash, Tuesday night - grid crash, and Wednesday exploited in update resulting in taking the grid down.) This was actually only 5 days, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt in case I got my days mixed up.

From what I can tell, a user created problem since open verification has numbered +30 (details are sketchy on some searches so I can't be sure to count them all).



Don't run off an opinion and basically ask us all to shut up about it, then demand us to come up with something better if you have nothing yourself. While hundreds of arguments and solutions have been brought up, and examples to provide info on befores and afters, and the effects, no one can tell me a *good* reason why it shouldn't be implemented again.

no one is insisting that cc= age verification, and yes there was occaisonal griefing but not on this scale until the free unverified accounts came about. the reason this horse keeps rearing its head is probably there is still an issue with griefing and children showin up in mature areas.

the issue with unverified accounts is that once LL bans or suspends the griefer, all they had to do was go back in and make another account, and the griefing continues. the suggestions here are merely ways to create a stop gap. so that the griefing, hacking, grid attacks, and children showing up in mature areas can decrease. no solution is 100%, and for every positive there will be a negative. until there is a bona fied way to verify age, topics like this are gonna keep coming up.

I never said that free accounts don't and can't contribute.

What I said is that free accounts who don't contribute do nothing but drain the resources that everyone needs.

I have used the shopping mall analogy before, and I still think it's an appropriate metaphor for SL: when you go to the mall, you're not paying admission just to get in the door, but you are helping pay the mall's bills when you buy a shirt or a pair of shoes: you pay the store, who pays rent to the mall owners. In the same way, basic accounts buy L$ and use the L$ to buy products. THe sellers of the products use the money earned to pay their rent.

However, when you go to the mall, and there are a bunch of kids who aren't doing anything but standing around smoking, those kids are not contributing to the mall's bills. In fact, by scaring off good customers, they're actually harming the mall's economy. This is why the security guards chase them off.

If you don't have a premium account, you buy L$, you don't rent land, or you don't create something that other people buy with L$ or US$, then you are not contributing anything to the economy of SL. Obviously, if you're buying L$, you're contributing. If you're making L$ by building, you're contributing. What I want to know is this: how many people with free, unverified, non-alt accounts are actually making L$ through creative efforts (as opposed to the various forms of charity)?

The only way I could see free accounts contributing to the SL economy is indirectly: through being the recipient of advertising. Perhaps they could play games on Pepsi Island or visit the Mountain Dew arena for a concert... but if SL turns in to one giant advertising medium, I will probably already have moved on to something else.

I never said that free accounts don't and can't contribute.

What I said is that free accounts who don't contribute do nothing but drain the resources that everyone needs.

I have used the shopping mall analogy before, and I still think it's an appropriate metaphor for SL: when you go to the mall, you're not paying admission just to get in the door, but you are helping pay the mall's bills when you buy a shirt or a pair of shoes: you pay the store, who pays rent to the mall owners. In the same way, basic accounts buy L$ and use the L$ to buy products. THe sellers of the products use the money earned to pay their rent.

However, when you go to the mall, and there are a bunch of kids who aren't doing anything but standing around smoking, those kids are not contributing to the mall's bills. In fact, by scaring off good customers, they're actually harming the mall's economy. This is why the security guards chase them off.

If you don't have a premium account, you buy L$, you don't rent land, or you don't create something that other people buy with L$ or US$, then you are not contributing anything to the economy of SL. Obviously, if you're buying L$, you're contributing. If you're making L$ by building, you're contributing. What I want to know is this: how many people with free, unverified, non-alt accounts are actually making L$ through creative efforts (as opposed to the various forms of charity)?

The only way I could see free accounts contributing to the SL economy is indirectly: through being the recipient of advertising. Perhaps they could play games on Pepsi Island or visit the Mountain Dew arena for a concert... but if SL turns in to one giant advertising medium, I will probably already have moved on to something else.

I've never seen a security guard chase people just milling about off. I have seen them kick out troublemakers, but in the long run, those kids DO buy something, but not necessarily that trip. Also to think, a parent who may shop there because of their kid seeing something, or shopping when they pick them up is potential dollars to them. They could be likely to lose parent's money from kicking out their child over hurt feelings.

However, your mall analogy is quite off. SL depends on socialization and economy. However the unverified's get money, the fact is, some of them do pay it to our premium members who use that to contribute. Each person, whether they contribute or not, drains resources from the 'payers and players'. In a mall, the worst thing they are draining is the toilet for a few hundredth's of a cent worth of water.

I can cram 300 people into the Gap and the Gap's light's still work. I cram 300 people into a sim... lights out.

Back when I was still married, my then-wife was waiting for me to come meet her after work at the local mall. She got there about 45 minutes early and sat on a bench outside. The security guard politely, but firmly, asked her to leave. Twice, I've been asked to leave when a friend and I were standing and chatting in the parking lot after shopping trips. A girlfriend of mine and I were once kicked out of the parking lot in front of Home Depot just after closing. We weren't doing anything: just talking.

Anyway, my point is that while the premium account holders actually pay the bills, it's the poeple who buy from those premium account holders that make it possible to pay the bills. I sincerely doubt that these mutli-sim holders rent $1000 or more worth of sims just because it's fun.

Do I think SL should have, and continue to have free accounts? Definitely. But given the rise in incidents of sim abuse, I think a new system needs to be enacted to prove the identity of people that have the potential to create sim-crashing scripts. Right now, it's simply too easy to do, and if the abuser is in a country without diplomatic relations, such as South Africa or the Ukraine, then there's zero chance of prosecuting the offender. To make matters worse, offenders can come back over and over again with free acounts. Even hardware hashes don't stop the smart ones.

CC's may not be the answer, but letting people come in unrestricted, with no proof of their identity, is also not the answer.

Sounds like a crazy town you live. As for Home Depot, that's required. It's for the safety of employees so random people who may be robbers aren't milling about. Most major companies have provisions in their policies to ensure the safety of the workers closing. As for the mall, I know some who do the same for outside people depending on time of day, who are waiting, but inside no. Anyways, I already showed taxing the Gap so the argument is moot.



These 'multi-sim owners' are also employing unverified's and free accounts, who in turn are shopping at vendors, who are renting from the sim owners, who use that money to pay their bills. Simply stereotyping anyone who doesn't contribute directly, usually does in their own way. If they aren't buying from vendors in certain locations, it might cause that vendor to leave that spot for low sales, causing that so called 'contributer' to lose sales and if that happens enough, the sim owner gives up and therefore LL loses money as opposed to not making any anyways.



Totally agree, outside of jurisdiction, we have no recourse to go across international waters unless it's proven an X amount of money was lost and therefore would require LOTS of intervention to which the government would probably still laugh at.

[/quote]CC's may not be the answer, but letting people come in unrestricted, with no proof of their identity, is also not the answer.[/QUOTE]

At least it was a form of an answer though. As it is now, LL has taken the silence stance on this, which does worry me, and even though it's not a guarantee of adult, or non griefer, eventually, once those cards are banned, people run out of ways to grief unless they shell out the cash to get more cards and accounts, which your run of the mill griefer, won't do. At least it would plug the hole in the dam somewhat.

Linden should issue a temporary charge to a CC on Basic accounts of about $10, and offer the choice of a refund after 30 days or convert to Linden. This way if a child has snuck to use a parents account to set up an SL account the parent will know when it hits their statement, and if its not a charge they recognize, it is easier to track it and if its their kid take appropriate measures.

Bangs his head......

Pardon me being blunt but that’s a damn good idea Blaque

You could make it one US dollar $1 and give out $L300 Lindens in return. That way you could eliminate one class of avatars and have two only, unverified and verified payment information used.

Surely no body could object to this route on cost grounds and you could solve a lot of problems, in my country at least you normally cannot get a credit card under the age of 18.

Regards

John

Ok, I concede this IS closer to having some kind od Age Verification using a Credit Card Providing the Notation that goes along with the Charge Does Specify The Charge IS for an Adults Only service, that way, Little Timmy can't tell Mom "It's the base charge for the SL TEEN GRID.

It Could work.

Angel.

Linden Labs could require every single Second Life user to line up in front of their HQ with birth certificates in hand to verify their age and you know what? That still wouldn't verify anything.

Why are some of you so down on an open registration policy when Linden Labs has clearly stated the reasons for such a policy? Not everyone on Earth lives in the USA and Europe. That is not a rumor but a fact.

If someone has a problem with underage people getting into SL I suggest they mount a worldwide campaign to encourage parents to get invovled with what their children do on the internet. I know this is a new concept but someone had to say it.

I personally love it, but then you'll have all those up in arms, as there are some in each post like this, that say "But I can't get a credit card and I don't want to go through the hassle to get one!"

My response: so what? If you don't contribute to the economy of SL, you are doing nothing but costing money to those that are contributing.

To buy L$, you need a credit card or PayPal. It's that simple.

The only other way to contribute to SL is to create things that other people will buy and then use that L$ to buy things from premium account holders.

But to create anything, you have to have L$ to upload textures, sounds, and animations. You have to have a place to sell it. BOTH of these activities cost real money. The only thing you could do without L$ is perhaps sell yourself in some fashion.

So the simple fact is: you need money to accomplish anything in SL. If you don't have a way to get money in to SL to buy L$ with, then you're not contributing to the system.

And if you're not contributing to the system, why should LL want you as a subscriber?

This is, admittedly, a very pragmatic view. But I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. So far, nobody has answered this very simple question:

Why should the people who ARE putting money in to SL (directly by paying tier or indirectly by buying L$) want free users who don't contribute in any way? Again, I'm not talking about contributing free accounts, but rather I'm talking about the free accounts who don't add value to the world by buying L$, earning L$, or paying tier.

Llauren I agree with the "friends bit"

It is just that I would rather know I am talking to an adult hence this thread. To a certain extent personal responsabilty is needed at present as I do not think the Linden warnings on adult use are an absolute safeguard.

But I also think all on this thread have good intent